[Pulp-dev] IBM's yum "repository" vs a normal sane repository

Tue Feb 27 18:55:19 UTC 2018

 I know this has been a day, but it took me a while to circle back around
to it. But in case anyone else runs into this, I have successfully gotten
an IBM AIX system, to use IBM's yum/rpm to retrieve content from IBM
mirror'd repositories in Foreman and Red Hat Satellite.

What was missing were the libxml2 rpms , though yum wouldn't say exactly
that, and there isn't a fancy ldconfig command I know on AIX

In the end, needed these:
/ # uname -a
AIX hostname  2 7 00FAF6804C00

/ # rpm -qa | egrep 'libxml|python|yum|rpm' | sort
AIX-rpm-7.2.2.0-6.ppc
libxml2-2.9.5-1.ppc
libxml2-python-2.9.5-1.ppc
python-2.7.10-1.ppc
python-devel-2.7.10-1.ppc
python-iniparse-0.4-1.noarch
python-pycurl-7.19.3-1.ppc
python-tools-2.7.10-1.ppc
python-urlgrabber-3.10.1-1.noarch
yum-3.4.3-5.noarch
yum-metadata-parser-1.1.4-2.ppc

And a repo conf such as this:

[Satellite_AIX_Toolbox_noarch]
name=AIX noarch repository
sslclientcert = /opt/freeware/etc/pki/entitlement.pem
sslclientkey = /opt/freeware/etc/pki/entitlement-key.pem
sslcacert = /opt/freeware/etc/pki/cacert.pem
sslverify=1
baseurl=https://capsule.example.com/pulp/repos/ORG/LAB/eue-aix72-server-ppc/
custom/eue_ibm_aix/noarch/
enabled=1
gpgcheck=0

# yum repolist
repo id
    repo name
  status
AIX_Toolbox_noarch
   AIX noarch mirror
 79
AIX_Toolbox_ppc
    AIX PPC mirror
 355
AIX_Toolbox_ppc-7.2
    AIX PPC mirror
  10
Satellite_AIX_Toolbox_noarch
   AIX noarch repository
 79

now off to conquer subscription-manager
Thanks for the advise!

Will Darton
7032322344
RHC{A,DS,E,VA,SA} 130-047-673

“There is excellence all around you. You need only to be aware to stop and
savor it.” - Anton Ego

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Will Darton <willdarton at gmail.com> wrote:

> So the source of the mirror is here:
>
> https://public.dhe.ibm.com/aix/freeSoftware/aixtoolbox/
> RPMS/ppc-7.2/repodata/9d2f104b8df5e04cb901daf712e21d
> 547df7cebc383eca3a4c757afa03708df3-primary.xml.gz
>
> And I extracted the downloaded primary
> https://pastebin.com/Wm9XNzph
>
> Appreciate any guidance. I got distracted working on some other foreman
> things for AIX
>
> Will Darton
> 7032322344 <(703)%20232-2344>
> RHC{A,DS,E,VA,SA} 130-047-673
>
> “There is excellence all around you. You need only to be aware to stop
> and savor it.” - Anton Ego
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Sean Myers <sean.myers at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/19/2018 02:36 PM, Will Darton wrote:
>> > Brian thanks for the response
>> > So pardon my newb question here, but I've not delved this deep in yum
>> repo
>> > xmls..
>> > Would the formatting of the xml make a difference?
>>
>> Not Brian, but the short answer is "no". Long answer below.
>>
>> > In the foreman generated primary.xml I have a stanza such as this
>> > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>> > <metadata packages="10" xmlns="http://linux.duke.edu/metadata/common"
>> > xmlns:rpm="http://linux.duke.edu/metadata/rpm"><package type="rpm">
>> >   <name>libgomp</name>
>> >   <arch>ppc</arch>
>> >   <version epoch="0" rel="1" ver="6.3.0" />
>> >   <checksum pkgid="YES" type="sha256">081c485b68e30e6c3f53a3b0932f3b
>> > 0067d687797713303734060e6c555da745</checksum>
>> >   <summary>GCC OpenMP 2.5 shared support library</summary>
>> >   <description>This package contains GCC shared support library which is
>> > needed
>> > for OpenMP 2.5 support.
>> >
>> >
>> > if [ "0" == 1 ]
>> > then
>> >
>> > Work in Progress</description>
>> >   <packager />
>> >
>> >
>> > And then in the direct mirrored primary.xml I have the same stanza but
>> with
>> > proper formatting
>> > <package type="rpm">
>> >   <name>libgomp</name>
>> >   <arch>ppc</arch>
>> >   <version epoch="0" ver="6.3.0" rel="1"/>
>> >   <checksum type="sha256" pkgid="YES">081c485b68e30e6c3f53a3b0932f3b
>> > 0067d687797713303734060e6c555da745</checksum>
>> >   <summary>GCC OpenMP 2.5 shared support library</summary>
>> >   <description>This package contains GCC shared support library which is
>> > needed
>> > for OpenMP 2.5 support.
>> >
>> >
>> > if [ "0" == 1 ]
>> > then
>> >
>> > Work in Progress</description>
>> >   <packager></packager>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I do notice also in the foreman/pulp generated primary.xml, there
>> appears
>> > to be a missing <packager> stanza after the </description>  So I'm
>> guessing
>> > the xml is getting misread as its ingested and regenerated by pulp
>>
>> <packager /> is functionally identical to <packager></packager>[0]; the
>> location
>> of the slashes matters there.
>>
>> Additionally, whitespace between tags should't matter[1][2], so the
>> newline
>> before "<package" doesn't matter.
>>
>> I think it's unlikely that those two things are the cause of the problem
>> here.
>> The original error does indicate a malformed xml document, unfortunately
>> doesn't
>> go into detail about exactly where:
>>
>> > TypeError: Parsing primary.xml error: Start tag expected, '<' not
>> > found
>>
>> I suspect it's failing on the very start of the document, though, since
>> that's
>> the only real place a parser can be sure it needs to see a start tag.
>>
>> In your direct mirrored xml example, the xml declaration [0] and the outer
>> metadata tag as seen in the foreman-generated xml seem to be missing:
>>
>> > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>> > <metadata ... >
>>
>> It might be useful to debugging to paste that mirrored primary.xml
>> somewhere, in
>> its entirety.
>>
>> [0]: https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-prolog-dtd
>>
>> [1]: https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-EmptyElemTag - Note that the
>> definition
>> there implicitly supports only "<tag/>" or "<tag />", but support for
>> "<tag></tag>" is demonstrated in the examples.
>>
>> [2]: https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-white-space - "In editing XML
>> documents,
>> it is often convenient to use "white space" (spaces, tabs, and blank
>> lines) to
>> set apart the markup for greater readability. Such white space is
>> *typically not
>> intended for inclusion in the delivered version of the
>> document*.[emphasis mine]"
>>
>> [3]: https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-element-content - "An element
>> type has
>> element content when elements of that type MUST contain only child
>> elements (no
>> character data), *optionally separated by white space*[emphasis mine]"
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180227/6622f4c4/attachment.htm>